I’ve been reading a lot about jury nullification, and I get that jurors have the power to acquit someone even if the law technically says they’re guilty. But what I don’t get is—why is this something that exists, yet courts don’t allow it to be talked about during a trial?
If it’s a legitimate part of the legal system, why is it treated like a secret? Would a juror get in trouble for mentioning it during deliberations? And what would happen if someone brought it up during jury selection?
I’m just curious how this all works in practice. If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?
You haven’t actually rebutted anything I’ve said.
That’s just semantics. Jurors participate for a reason.
A system where jurors just nullify cases when they don’t dig the vibe is obviously not a justice system.
The only reason the western world is falling all over themselves to believe in jury nullification is because our justice system is completely unjust and wealthy people can just string things out indefinitely.
Enlighten me. What do you think that reason is?
From where I’m sitting, you have dismissed the entire purpose of a layperson jury as “semantics”, so I would really like to know what “reason” you are talking about.
The role of the jury in criminal trials is to review questions of fact and to determine guilt or innocence according to the law.
True. But a judge can do that. A professional judge, who understands the laws he is applying.
Give your reasoning for a layperson jury.
The requirement for a jury of your peers to find you guilty ensures that a corrupt court can not make arbitrary pronouncements of guilt.
You’re getting warmer. You’ve contemplated a corrupt court.
Let’s move our hypothetical corruption to another branch: is our layperson jury supposed to apply laws written by a corrupt or incompetent legislature?
Is our layperson jury supposed to enforce laws maliciously applied by the executive?
You’re still tepid. I’m weary of this silly “what if our layperson jury stands on one foot while sucking a lemon” tete-a-tete. If you have a point then make it.
Of course a jury is supposed to apply the law.
There’s this whole other process to ensure that laws are not corrupt nor incompetent nor maliciously applied called the democratic election of law makers. If laws are unjust then the system is broken.
It’s antithetical to the democratic process to propose that 12 people can subvert the intentions of the voting populace.
And there is a whole process for ensuring the courts are not corrupt or malicious as well: the appellate process.
Yet, you allowed for a layperson jury to perform an additional check on the judicial branch.
What is the constitutional basis for your allowance of this check against the courts? How is this check restricted to only the courts, and not to the legislature or the executive?
Those 12 people are members of the voting populace. A random selection in unanimous agreement on a particular application of the law.
They aren’t subverting the intentions of the voting populace. They are applying the intention of the voting populace to the particular circumstances of the case.
How should a jury operate in a broken system? If the laws are unjust, is the jury supposed to enforce that the injustice, or are they supposed to provide a remedy to that injustice?
Any observer can see that the jury is in place to provide a check against the judiciary and the executive. Police can’t simply make accusations and have a judge pronounce a punishment without a jury to apply the law.
There’s a well established system with which to check the legislature. We elect representatives who debate proposed changes to legislation before passing it in to law.
This doesn’t require jury nullification. The intention of the voting populace is encoded in these things called laws. A judge is on hand to assist a jury in interpreting the law, and applying relevant precedents. On this basis a jury can determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges against them.
Comically, in my first post I said that this is where these discussions usually end up. You don’t like the idea of living in a broken society so you’re trying to support your belief that there’s a mechanism in place to fix it all. Of course a jury is supposed to enforce unjust laws. Courts often produce unjust outcomes, puppies die sometimes. Having a jury just make up the law based on how much they like the defendant or dislike the victim hasn’t provided very just outcomes in the past.